Campbell et al v. BJ Services Company, U.S.A., LLC et al

Filing 86

ORDER granting 74 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge John W. Sedwick on 5/14/18. (GMM, CHAMBERS STAFF)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Kenneth Baker and Jennifer Baker,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., )
)
Defendant.
)
)

3:16-cv-00038 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at docket 74]

16
17
18

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 74, plaintiffs Kenneth Baker and Jennifer Baker (jointly “Plaintiffs”)

19

moved for an order in limine foreclosing introduction of certain evidence. Defendant

20

Baker Hughes Oilfield Services (“Defendant”) responded at docket 81. No reply was

21

filed. Oral argument was not requested.

22
23
24

II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are married and jointly own a home on a parcel of land which is near

25

property owned by Defendant. Plaintiffs contend Defendant’s property was a source of

26

pollution affecting them. Plaintiffs and certain others filed this action in state court.

27
28

Following removal to this court, Plaintiffs and the others whose claims have been

1
2
3

subsequently resolved filed a second amended complaint.1 Following resolution of the
other plaintiffs’ claims, counsel for Plaintiffs filed a report describing the remaining
dispute in these words: “The remaining claimants are Kenneth and Jennifer Baker.

4
5

Kenneth Baker’s claim is limited to diminution of value of property (family home

6

adjacent to Baker Hughes contaminated property). Jennifer Baker’s claim is for

7

diminution of the same property and her health problems she connects to pollution

8

released on Defendant’s adjacent lot.” 2

9

III. DISCUSSION

10
Plaintiffs’ motion requests exclusion of evidence concerning Kenneth’s use of
11
12

illicit drugs. Kenneth’s use of illicit drugs at various times is undisputed. Plaintiffs

13

argue that his drug use is irrelevant to Kenneth’s sole claim–reduction in the value of

14

the real property. Moreover, it is clear to the court that such evidence has no bearing

15

on Jennifer’s claims. Defendant does not dispute the proposition that ev idence of

16

Kenneth’s drug use should be excluded. The motion in limine will be granted as to

17
18

Kenneth’s drug use.

19

Plaintiffs’ motion also seeks exclusion of evidence concerning Kenneth’s

20

conviction of a sex crime. It is undisputed that Kenneth pled guilty to a misdemeanor

21

count of sexual abuse by attempting to secretly film his stepdaughter while she was

22
23

showering. Plaintiffs argue that this evidence is irrelevant to the pending claims and that
it is highly prejudicial.

24
25
26

1

27

2

28

Doc. 21.
Doc. 52 at pp. 1-2.

-2-

1
2
3

Defendant contends that the evidence is relevant. Defendant cites
AS 34.70.010. That statute obligates the transferor of real estate to provide a
disclosure statement to the transferee which complies with AS 34.70.050. Section 050

4
5

requires that the disclosure statement be in a form prescribed by the Real Estate

6

Commission and says the disclosure form must advise the transferee that the

7

transferee is responsible to determine if a person who has been convicted of a sex

8

offense resides in the vicinity of the property. Further, the disclosure form must advise

9

the transferee where information about the location of convicted sex offenders may be

10
found. Defendant agues this statutory scheme “does appear to require the Bakers to
11
12
13
14
15
16

disclose to potential buyers that Mr. Baker has been convicted of a sex offense for
surreptitiously filming his stepdaughter in the shower.”3
There are two problems with Defendant’s argument. First, the statute explicitly
puts the burden on the transferee, not the transferor, to determine if a sex offender
resides in the vicinity. Second, if a sale were completed, Kenneth would not be residing

17
18
19
20

in the vicinity of the property. It is not apparent to this court that the law requires
Plaintiffs to disclose Kenneth’s conviction of a sex crime.
Defendant advances another argument. According to Defendant, Plaintiffs claim

21

that Defendant’s discharge of Portland cement “has prevented them from using their

22

property as they would like, including causing Ms. Baker to move from the property.”4

23

Defendant goes on to point out that at her deposition Jennif er testified that the reason

24
25
26

3

27

4

28

Doc. 81 at p.4.
Id., at p. 5.

-3-

1

she moved out of the home she shared with Kenneth was, “I guess his criminal activity

2

that happened.” 5

3

Defendant’s argument is a straw man argument. Defendant points to nothing in

4
5

the record asserting that Jennifer moved because of the pollution. The second

6

amended complaint does not allege that Jennifer moved because of the pollution. 6 The

7

motion in limine will be granted with respect to Kenneth’s criminal conviction.

8
9

IV. CONCLUSION AND CAVEAT
For the reasons above the motion at docket 74 is GRANTED.

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs are warned that if they introduce evidence that Jennifer moved from the
property because of the pollution, the court will reconsider and likely admit evidence of
Kenneth’s criminal conviction.
DATED this 14th day of May 2018.

15
16

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5

27

6

28

Doc. 81-1 at p.5 of the exhibit.
Doc 21.

-4-